Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020. We know that this bill will permanently replace the BasicsCard with the cashless debit card in the Northern Territory. I represent the people of Darwin and Palmerston in this place, and this issue is very important to my constituents and to the rest of the NT. We know that, with what is proposed around making the trial card permanent in several sites around the country, the government is trying to roll it out permanently without much interest in how the trials or the research have been going. We heard, in Senate estimates, the minister admit that she hadn't read the long-awaited $2.5 million review by Adelaide uni before deciding to make the cashless debit card trials permanent. It's not very good—a minister doesn't bother to read a review that's been commissioned by one of our top universities.

The Auditor-General found that there's no evidence that the card works to reduce social harm, as the government—those opposite—claim. Instead, it's made it harder for participants to purchase basic and essential items at more affordable prices, and we know that this bill is racially discriminatory. It will disproportionately impact Indigenous people—two-thirds of those to be forced onto this cashless debit card. This includes over 23,000 people in the Northern Territory, many of whom live in remote areas. And they don't want it.

Senator Rex Patrick was in the Top End last month with my NT colleague Senator Malarndirri McCarthy. They were meeting local people who, as I mentioned earlier, as an overwhelming majority have been strongly resistant to the permanent rollout of this card in the Territory. I commend Senator Patrick on his visit, on his interest in understanding how this card affects people's daily lives and for the conversations that I've had with him about the issue. It was great to see him up in the Territory having a look for himself.

I understand—in fact, I know because I've spoken with him about it—that he had a card issued to him. He intended to use it to make all of his purchases for the duration of the trip in the north, so he could get a sense of what an everyday person would experience using the card. I commend him for doing that, as well. They met with Larrakia Nation elders in Darwin and with the Arnhem Land Progress Aboriginal Corporation, or ALPA. I note that ALPA have their own card, which has been working quite well so far. They are frustrated and asking why they need to go under a new regime, the cashless debit card system, when they've got their own that is working well. But the government—those opposite—won't listen to them on that.

Senator Patrick went with Senator McCarthy to Nhulunbuy, in eastern Arnhem Land, and met with the local NT MLA, with the Dhimurru Aboriginal Corporation and with Laynhapuy Homelands Aboriginal Corporation. As I'm told, from that visit, the strong message from Arnhem Land was that the communities do not want this cashless debit card. They think it's being rushed through. They say that, every time a new government comes in, they make changes to programs like this, and they're quite frankly sick of it. In their minds, it's linked to the Intervention and more top-down punitive actions. There are also some concerns around the fact that cigarettes can be purchased using the new card.

From his trip, I think Senator Patrick learned a lot about the 2007 Intervention and about how badly it disempowered communities and how lasting the effects are. I've shared some of my views with him. I was serving in NORFORCE in the Northern Territory during the Intervention, so I saw firsthand this disempowerment in action. I'm sure that, as a former serviceman himself, he appreciates the role that institutions like NORFORCE play up there and the importance of trying to reduce harm in these communities wherever possible.

I should point out at this stage that Labor isn't opposed to income management in all circumstances, but we are opposed to broad based compulsory programs that capture and disempower the wrong people. You can justify income management when it's targeted but not when it's indiscriminate. The evaluation of income management in the Northern Territory found that, when it was compulsory, there were no improvements but that voluntary income management could be different. For example, we've heard that in Cape York, where the local community is applying income management based on individual circumstances, supporting families and monitoring outcomes, they support the card. As long as that community support continues, it's appropriate to have the card in use there. But, in an NT context, the Arnhem Land Progress Aboriginal Corporation said this about the government's cashless debit card plans:

… there is no evidence demonstrating that it creates positive change for the people who will be subjected to it. This erosion of people's choice and control over their own lives destroys any sense of self-determination, it is an attack on their basic rights, the burden of proof should lie with the Government to prove without doubt that this policy works before enforcing it upon our communities …

They also said, 'There has been little to no consultation undertaken in the Northern Territory,' to date. Why not? Why wouldn't the government be consulting with people before it forces them into a program such as this? Why doesn't it give the people of the Northern Territory the dignity of having a proper conversation and actually listening to their concerns? It's beyond frustrating and offensive for our people.

I agree with the NT Council of Social Service, NTCOSS, who said: 'The cashless debit card is a solution that does not work for a problem that does not exist. It is essential that any programs for Aboriginal people recognise their sovereignty, and it's essential that communities have control and agency over matters that affect them. That is at the heart of closing the gap. That is the opposite of the cashless debit card. Quite aside from the lack of evidence supporting the card or forced income management in general, technical issues in remote communities mean participants can have no money for food when electronic payment methods are not functioning. It can make it almost impossible to access support services in replacing lost or stolen cards as well as applying to exit income management. Internet and mobile phone coverage are not guaranteed in communities, and English can be a third or fourth language for many. With limited support from Centrelink and access to a single phone for queries and complaints, these are real and significant challenges for people living remotely.' I will stress it again: advocates for the cashless debit card say that there is not a problem, but there are problems in communities around Australia, and we know that. In the Northern Territory we have the BasicsCard. That is why people in the Northern Territory, in particular, don't want this. That feedback from NTCOSS is right on the money, I think.

There's a lot of confusion in the community around this. Pensioners and other Centrelink recipients contact my electorate office to share their concerns that they too will be forced onto the cashless debit card. And it's increasingly looking like any Australian who is receiving some sort of Centrelink payment will eventually be forced onto this card, whether they want it or need it or not. I send that warning to people. This will not be just for people in remote communities. Those opposite will seek to roll this out in a much broader way.

We also learnt through Senate estimates that the government is discussing with the major banks how to use the card through their systems, and that means the banks will have some kind of access to information about what money some customers are receiving as well as some say over what they can spend their money on. That is a big privacy issue we're still seeking some clarity on. It's not just about the NT; this will affect the whole country.

I urge any members of the crossbench with any concerns about the patchy process of this card to vote this bill down and send the federal government back out to do its homework: to read the commissioned reports on the card and to consult properly and respectfully with communities. It's clear that that hasn't been done in this case.

I want to again commend Senator Rex Patrick and others who have taken the time to get out onto country to talk to people who will be affected by this bill. These are important issues for people in my electorate, the Northern Territory and the other communities that are affected across the country, and I welcome a rethink by the federal government on it.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I'm very pleased to continue my contribution to the Social Security (Administrations) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill of 2020. While much of the conversation around this card has focused on First Nations people, this makes sense, given that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people make up more than two-thirds of those most impacted, and I addressed many of those matters in my earlier contribution. However, we know that the government's ultimate plan is to roll this out nationally and, indeed, we learnt in Senate estimates that the government's already set up a formal working group with the big banks and Australia Post to work on making the cashless debit card part of mainstream accounts and point of sale. This is despite the fact that the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Anne Ruston, admitted at Senate estimates that she hasn't read the review of the rollout. So let's not sugar-coat this: it is going to impact a lot of disadvantaged and marginalised people in Australia, and yet we've got a government who hasn't actually looked at the review.

The cashless debit card will capture all those marginalised and disadvantaged people and tie them up into an income management regime where there is no apparent pathway for escape, no means of breaking the cycle of poverty and no way to regain agency. It will take away their capacity to make decisions about very fundamental aspects of our lives such as how you choose to spend your money. And, in doing so, it will remove autonomy, it will disempower people and instil in them fear, shame and stigma—the very things that so many people are already experiencing in these situations and shocking levers for any government to be taking advantage of. In return, the cashless debit card offers nothing—no education, no training, no support to help stabilise people's lives to enable them to move away from income management. We know that's not how you go about changing behaviours or dealing with deep systemic and structural disadvantage in this nation. This is not how you remedy poverty. Indeed, it's how you entrench disadvantage even further.

People are being punished for their disadvantage in a cruel and ongoing way, and this is the laziest form of public policymaking. It won't provide any of the necessary wraparound services that are required in order to meet the very real challenges people face and to break that cycle of poverty. It's no remedy at all. If the government were serious about helping people on income support, they would be making sure that they properly fund Aboriginal controlled organisations and services that are working in communities to address those challenges, to provide mental health support and to give assistance to find stable housing. A government would be seeking to fund training and support that might lead to employment. You might even consider creating meaningful jobs on country and in communities. But we are not actually dealing with any of those matters in this bill. We're not even able to meet the very basic fundamentals of people's lives to ensure that they have nourishment, shelter and safety in their lives. Instead, the government prefers to control the way in which people spend their money, as if this was any type of panacea or, indeed, any type of reform that is genuinely required. Indeed, the only thing that people are likely to learn from this is what an inhumane and unthinking government we have. This is just plain cruel, punitive and ideological, not to mention ridiculously short sighted.

The government needs to abandon this plan and, instead, invest in evidence based policies, job creation and much-needed community services. So I'm very pleased to stand today with my Labor colleagues in opposing this bill. We plead with the government to rethink its support of this shocking plan.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, rise to oppose the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020. I personally have always been opposed to compulsory cashless debit cards, particularly given the way in which this government has rolled them out. They're just a blunt instrument. They do not address the underlying social and economic issues that many people who are receiving welfare payments face.

Previous speakers on my side of the House have really gone into detail about this, but it needs to be put on the record again that, since the rollout of the cashless debit card 12 years ago under the Howard government when the Intervention first occurred in the NT, there has been no substantiated evidence that compulsory broad based income management works. It doesn't work. In fact, we have the opposite. We have evidence upon evidence, review after review—independent, government and led by this parliament—and we have individuals, society and state governments all saying that it just doesn't work. Nor was it going to, given the way, and the motivation with which, the Howard government and then this government have continued to roll it out. It comes back to the values and the ethos of a government. And this government—whether it be back in the Howard years or today, the Liberal and National parties—basically seeks to punish. They believe that, when people are on welfare payments, it's their own fault. They believe that people on welfare payments have not been able to pull themselves up and, therefore, need to be punished. They'd rather use sticks to punish people, instead of offering carrots, when there are multiple reasons why people might find themselves unemployed or on some kind of welfare payment.

The government has done little to address the social issues in many of the communities that are on these compulsory arrangements. Take, for example, the cost of groceries and the cost of fuel. They're very, very high in these communities. When you force communities onto these cards, it distorts the market locally. It's done very little to address the drug dependency issues and alcohol issues in these communities, and this government always tends to jump on that bandwagon. There aren't enough social workers, and there are not enough diversion programs. Quite frankly, there is not enough investment in people and in communities to ensure that they are using the means that they have for their children and their communities. The government also likes to overestimate and overemphasise how people use their payments for drugs, alcohol or other purposes.

As people on my side of the House have gone into great detail to explain and as these communities have told us, many people use their payments as they should—for the basics. The problem—and it's a problem that is well known throughout Australia—is that our social welfare payments in this country are too low. That is why families don't have enough money to put food on the table, that is why families don't have enough money to buy shoes for their kids and that is why families who are on basic payments are struggling. This year we have seen some relief. We've seen the coronavirus supplement boost people who are on Newstart payments and parenting payments. That has helped to alleviate some of the poverty that we've seen in these communities—all communities—but it's only been short-term and not enough to undo the ongoing damage that being trapped on a low payment has done.

I do support and encourage the cashless debit card where it is voluntary. Maybe the government needs to focus more attention on encouraging people who may need it. There's a small proportion of people who put their hands up to say, 'I'm struggling with my finances and I do need help'. That may be for multiple reasons—it may not just be addiction related, it may also be because of debts which they've been trapped into through dodgy loan sharks. These people also put their hands up for support. But how you recruit people to put up their hands is where we need the resources.

Again, it comes back to the blunt instrument of this government: time and time again they'd rather go for the stick as opposed to investing in people to support others. Whether it be through robodebt and their blunt approach there, or through the cashless debit card, what they aim to do is control. That's the very opposite of what you'd expect from a party called the 'Liberal' Party. The Liberal Party is supposed to be about freedom but it's very much further from that. If we look at evidence from overseas, we roll our eyes as this government try again to control individuals who are on payments. That is a critical point in this debate: which communities do they want to control? Disproportionately and overwhelmingly it's our First Nations communities. Again, there's this white, imperialist view that white governors—white people in this place—have a better understanding, and feel that it's their place to impose control over our First Nations people.

Those opposite turn their backs and shut their eyes, saying, 'We're doing it for the children'. If they were really doing it for the children, they'd engage appropriately and respectfully with these communities. They'd listen to the evidence, they'd understand and they'd seek out support—and know that it is not working. Far too many individuals who are trying to do the right thing are caught up in these programs. I'm not surprised that the people of Bundaberg and Hervey Bay have pushed back. It might also be noted that since the government have rolled out their cashless debit card, and now seek to do it permanently to these communities—Bundaberg and Hervey Bay—that maybe it has something to do with the remarkable result for Labor in Queensland. It's been a very long time since Labor has held the seats of Hervey Bay and Bundaberg, and yet at the last election we saw them swing our way. Maybe the fact that this government—the LNP—are trying to control the lives of individuals means that we're starting to see communities push back.

I've highlighted Bundaberg and Hervey Bay because they're also examples of what Labor can do in a positive way.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Bendigo will resume her seat. The member for Petrie, on a point of order?

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point of order is in relation to relevance. The Queensland government has nothing to do with this bill. And I also take offence at her view of the white imperialist view of this government. We have a multicultural—

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will resume his seat. The member for Bendigo is in continuation.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was speaking in relation to those policies. There are positive things that are happening in the communities of Bundaberg, Hervey Bay and Maryborough. The Queensland state Labor government has focused on an employment program. Trains are being built again in Maryborough; that is creating hope and opportunity for many people who are unemployed and looking for work. If we had a government which focused on job creation and if we had a government which focused on using its taxpayer dollars wisely—to make Australian and to buy Australian—it would be just one area where we could focus on employment.

I'm speaking about the overall approach that this government have towards people who are on welfare payments, whether they be on JobSeeker or the pension. They see people who are on these payments as 'leaners'. They see people who are on these payments as people who have very little to do and very little to lift themselves up with. And those aren't my words—'lifters' and 'leaners'—those were the words of the current Prime Minister when he was the social services minister. These aren't my words that I'm putting into the Prime Minister's mouth; these are his own words, repeated time and time again by his backbench and members of his frontbench. It is disappointing that we have a Prime Minister who was the social services minister that oversaw the expansion of the cashless debit card, a card that is not aimed at lifting people or giving people the confidence to control their finances. Instead, it is a blunt instrument. Broad based management income, as I've said, does not work.

I strongly urge the government to listen to Labor's proposed amendments, to make sure they rethink this, like with so many other proposals that they've put before us. Their ideology underpins our social welfare system in this country, and it needs a rethink. There is a real lack of evidence for the cashless debit card to continue. Since it was introduced during the Howard government's intervention in the NT, there's been no credible evidence—none whatsoever—that proves that compulsory broad based income management works. We strongly oppose the government wanting to make sure that these existing trials are made permanent. We strongly oppose any further expansion. If the government could roll it out everywhere, I reckon we'd see it everywhere, and I know in my community of Bendigo there would be pushback. Like many communities in regional areas, a blunt instrument like a cashless debit card does not go to the heart and the core of complex problems.

The majority of people on payments are doing the right thing; they are spending it where they need it. They simply don't have enough. The government is trying to cover up for their lack of payment by saying it's the individual's fault that they can't manage their finances. For the second group, the group that may need help and support with a cashless-style debit card, it should be voluntary, and it was voluntary before this government made it compulsory. By having people volunteer to be part of a program, it will be more successful. People will not resent the fact that their finances are being managed. From time to time, individuals do acknowledge that they need help with their finances, and that's where the social workers come in, the financial counsellors come in and the support programs come in. That's another thing that we in Labor are advocating for—that more needs to go into the wraparound social support services for that small group of people who identify that they do need help with managing their finances. They do exist and they are seeking help. But, at the moment, the queues for a financial counsellor are very long. Those meetings are quite often on the phone and hard to interpret. There just aren't enough social workers on the ground, particularly when it comes to remote and regional Australia. And there is not enough done to work on our cultural engagement with our First Nations people. At the end of the day, it comes back to: do you want a successful policy which sees people actually allow themselves a determination going forward to have the means to live their life, to look for meaningful work and to move forward, or do you want to keep seeking to punish people, like we've seen at the trial sites, with a program that doesn't deliver genuine reform?

I urge the government to rethink this plan. Like so many of their other plans in this place, it's a blunt instrument that does not work. It's the perpetuation of their ideology. It is a way to punish people as opposed to support people. It tries to reinforce their mantra, their doctrine, that it is the individual's fault, that the individual is bad at managing money, that the individual is not able to look after themselves. And it is quite an imperialist view, one which we've heard for centuries not just in this country but all over the world. It is time that we stop this. It is time that we empower people to feel good about moving forward, that we help them if they need support, that we make sure that the payment is a liveable payment, that we ensure there are real job opportunities for people in these communities so they're not trapped on welfare, that we ensure we are there to support them if they need support. It is time that we stop using blunt instruments like the cashless debit card to permanently entrench poverty and control.

It was disappointing that the member for Petrie jumped up to cut off my speech. I think it demonstrates the very nature of this government. They don't like to be criticised. They don't like to be held to account. They don't respect the parliament. They don't respect difference of opinion. It is really disappointing that, rather than making a debate in this section, rather than getting up and making a speech on this bill, they would seek to interject and use the parliament to cut off speakers. It demonstrates how they feel that they are above the rest of us, that they are above debate, that they are above analysing, that they just treat the rest of us like—they disregard us.

Finally, this is a bad bill. It goes against everything. It goes against the evidence, it goes against the people's wishes and it goes to the core of what this government is: mean, tricky, controlling and deliberately misleading. They are not there for the Australian people, and the Australian people will remember that, particularly in Queensland, when it comes to the next federal election.

Government members interjecting—

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't mind if those on the other side want to interject during my speech. It just shows their ignorance. If they'd wanted to speak on the motion they could have spoken on it, and they didn't.

Hon. Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have spoken on this—

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Members, both on the left and on the right, will cease interjecting.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020. It's not the first time I've spoken in opposition to this government's discriminatory and insulting policy, nor do I suspect it will be the last, unfortunately. The government's policies in these areas are punitive and never curative. We have seen the absolute tragedy of robodebt, we have seen the fact that they refuse to adequately fund proper housing policies, we have seen their unwillingness to create a permanent increase in the JobSeeker allowance and we know that how they approach poor people is punitive. They never seen to flinch at the absolute obscenity of executive incomes of $5 million, $10 million or even $20 million. That's okay. But the poorest, the most disadvantaged in our society, are the ones they want to punish.

I have no hesitation in stating that I'm totally opposed to this bill. It's discriminatory. It's insulting. It has unintended consequences. The bill before the House seeks to make the government's cashless debit card permanent in a number of existing trial sites, and very likely we know this is the thin end of the wedge and they'll be continuing the cashless debit card throughout the country. It is an absolute tragedy that this is the government's welfare policy. It's paternalistic. It is really insulting to the most disadvantaged in our communities and, unfortunately, it will have dreadful consequences.

There's no clear evidence that compulsory broad based income management works. There is absolutely no evidence for that whatsoever. That's why Labor is opposed to the extension of a trial program. As has previously been mentioned, if it were a voluntary program, you would have a much higher chance of success. We know that from previous income management trials, on a voluntary basis, run by a number of organisations. It's of great importance to understand that. We shouldn't come into this place and make such significant decisions about other people's lives without appropriate evidence, consultation and communication. It is paternalistic. It's discriminatory. It is really insulting to people who struggle with a whole range of problems, from intellectual disability to drug and alcohol problems to extreme multigenerational social disadvantage. For us to come in here and impose this from on high to people in those situations is totally wrong. It is against any moral imperative that I can think of. If people in the community want to use the cashless debit card on a voluntary basis, that's fine. But parliament should not impose this on entire communities without consent, without evidence and without adequate consideration.

I believe the bill before us today is racially charged and discriminatory in nature. I don't think there is any way you can deny that. This legislation would place 35,000 people on the cashless debit card permanently. It's critical that we recognise that the vast majority of them—about 70 per cent, in fact—are First Nations people. I think the government really needs to rethink this. It is now well over a decade since the Howard government's intervention, and, again, there is no clear evidence that broad based income management works. We've had a decade to gather the evidence and it's just not there. It was this legislation which brought about the BasicsCard in the Northern Territory. The transition to the cashless debit card in the NT—a technology swap, if you like—is in effect an extension and continuation of the intervention measure. That's why we're so opposed to it.

The government's whole philosophy, its ideology, is based on the very flawed idea of lifters and leaners. We know how wrong that is. We know there is strong opposition to the scheme among the communities that are affected the most. A Senate inquiry into a previous bill discovered that First Nations organisations and representatives considered the policy to be yet another example of government imposition of paternalistic policies lacking in consultation and lacking in consent. Even the Auditor-General has found no clear evidence that the cashless debit card works. That begs the question as to why the coalition is relentlessly pursuing its warped agenda. I know why. It's because it's ideological. Unfortunately, that ideology continues the damage. Community members, organisations and officials, and the Auditor-General, are all telling the government to abandon this policy. But never mind, this lifters and leaners government, which picks winners and losers, thinks it knows best and it is going to push ahead with it anyway. It's also important to note that the government is pushing ahead with this legislation while still awaiting the results of an independent review by Adelaide university. It couldn't wait to try and get some evidence.

Ideologically, the government want to push through with this as part of their lifters and leaners, winners and losers policy. It's a tragedy. They want to ram it through parliament. They want to ram through these changes that affect the most disadvantaged in our communities. Those opposite aren't even trying to hide the fact that this is an ideological attack. We do not have countless coalition members sitting on the benches opposite ready to contribute to the debate. Where are they? Absent. This legislation is going to be imposed on very disadvantaged people, the majority of whom are First Nations people, yet very few of those opposite even want to comment on it. We have complete radio silence from the coalition benches. Perhaps, at this very minute, there are members of the Liberal-National government waiting to speak, but I don't see them. Perhaps we will see members on the other side pour into the chamber ready to tell Australia why the government know best, why the government like to attack the most disadvantaged and why they want to control the wallets of First Nations people. I think it's pretty unlikely, though. I don't think they'll be rushing in here.

This is what we've come to expect from this ideological, conservative government that is willing to punish the poor but not look at the obscenity of the massive salaries paid to the executives of our biggest companies. This is an obnoxious, stunt-driven operation, led by the great marketing man with little substance or willingness to show up and own any responsibility. In spite of waiting for the review from the University of Adelaide, the government have gone ahead and committed to making the cashless debit card scheme permanent in their budget—permanent in some communities, if this legislation passes, and very likely to be rolled out further around Australia. This is clearly an ideologically-driven policy, not evidence based policy, and an example of an arrogant government who doesn't understand those who are really struggling.

I cannot understand where those opposite derive their moral authority from. Putting forward this legislation is incomprehensible. We're in the midst of a global pandemic and an economic recession, and those opposite are pushing forward with the plans to control the day-to-day finances of so many of our First Nations people. None of us here have to account for every single dollar of our travel allowance for each and every time we meet in Canberra, and none of us have to account for each of our respective electorate support allowances. Those opposite certainly do not seem to feel the need to be held accountable to decisions such as subsidising the private jet of Clive Palmer, giving taxpayers' money to a billionaire in New York, performing political stunts, misusing the Air Force's VIP jet fleet, giving dodgy grants to lucrative sporting clubs with ties to the Liberal Party, giving huge council grants to Liberal-supporting councils and doing dodgy deals in the Cayman Islands with water licences. Yet they want to control the day-to-day finances of entire communities. This is morally repugnant. I do not know where members of this coalition government get their moral authority from. If anybody should be made to go on a cashless debit card it's those opposite.

The government's cashless debit card policy is based on ideology, not based on evidence. We know it's racially discriminatory. We know the government is pushing forward and ultimately seeking to roll this scheme out nationally, yet it won't even wait for the findings of the review it commissioned before deciding to make the card permanent. I implore those opposite to cease this racially charged, ideological attack and come to their senses. This is bad legislation, it's discriminatory and it affects very disadvantaged communities. It will be rolled out further, we know that from the government's ideology, and it is a tragedy. I'm totally opposed to the bill.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I had the privilege of an excellent education at Christian Brothers College and—I think most people who went through Christian Brothers in the sixties would agree with me—we were taught that Big Brother is watching. We were taught about Aldous Huxley's, Brave New World, and the other Orwellian book that came out at the same time. They were horror stories. Movies were made out of them and, in these stories, you lived in a world where Big Brother watched every aspect of your lives and controlled every aspect of your lives. If we move to a cashless society, democracy does not rule our lives and we do not rule our lives: the banks rule our lives. We're moving into a society where the banks rule and control every aspect of our lives.

When I became the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in Queensland, I went to Yarrabah. There were 2,000 to 3,000 people there, and there were 16 positions of power which were all held by whitefellas. They trotted out two little coconuts who looked down at the floor and gave the departmental approved answers to my questions, that everything was marvellously well. In actual fact, there were six brand new Logan Unit houses made of fibrolite that had been smashed to pieces. Every single panel was smashed before they were taken to lockup stage. There was rioting which resulted in three people being rushed to hospital and seven people were jailed. And here they are telling me that everything's going well at Yarrabah! Some three years later, the deaths-in-custody issue broke out at Yarrabah. That's how well everything was going at Yarrabah! Yet, if I didn't know and if I weren't so cynical, I would have accepted that this was paradise on earth.

How do you get that much control? Everyone was on a government cheque or a welfare cheque, and all the welfare cheques were cashed by the department. So the government department either paid the wages or cashed the cheques. Either way, the government had complete control. That department and that departmental head had complete control of the lives of those people, and it emasculated them to a point where they were simply shadows of human beings. Every single decision-making power had been taken from them by a cashless society controlled by 'Big Brother'.

The Liberals were really founded as a little-L liberal party. Menzies had a different approach. He did not see himself as a conservative in those years when he formed the Liberal Party. They of all people should be the ones with their guns out. But they're not. They are puppets of the banks. As with many, many things in our country—in any country, I suspect—there's a good reason for this. The bloke to alert Australia to this is a bloke who went to a blackfellas' school; he is a whitefella, but most of the school was blackfellas—that's the information I'm given. His name is Andrew Forrest, from a fairly prominent family in Western Australia. His great grandfather and his great uncle founded the state of Western Australia, in fact. He was horrified by what was happening with our First Australians. He has visited Roebourne on many occasions, and I visited on one occasion, and I counted 62 people lying prostrate in the street. I tried to talk to three of them, but they were unconscious. They were just lying around drunk in the street. It was the day after payday, and 62 human beings were lying in the street.

If you take from a person every single right that he has to control his life—and the socialists are the worst at this. They have to look after the poor, and their looking after the poor emasculates the poor. Percy Neal, the mayor of Yarrabah for many years and a person who can be very eloquent at times, said: 'Minister, you simply don't get it, do you? You have an addiction to the idea that we blackfellas can't look after ourselves. Well, we were doing pretty good for 40,000 years, before you mob arrived here.' He said: 'All we ask of you is to get the hell out of our lives. We don't want to be looked after. We want you gone. That's all we want.' One of the reasons the Neal family and I are so enormously close is that I got 'em gone.

The last time I visited Yarrabah, the 16 main positions held at Yarrabah were all held by black people, not white people, not like when I went there the first time. Far from being reticent, browbeaten and terrified, they were very aggressive towards me, and other people as well. They were rioting over the absolutely shameful COVID lock-up. They weren't locked down, like the rest of us; they were locked up, and Yarrabah was a very good example of the lock-up. Eventually people started demonstrating on a massive scale. It proved to the people of Queensland that, whatever the ALP was, it was not on their side. It was absolute proof. In the face of those demonstrations and rage from people like me, within seven days the lock-up restrictions were removed. When I say it was locked up, let me give one example. When I was at Checkpoint Charlie, three cars rolled up to take stores into Yarrabah, and some of it was food. One driver was a blackfella and the other two were whitefellas. They were all Cairns residents, not Yarrabah residents. The blackfella was told that he couldn't go into the community, but the two whitefella drivers could. I said: 'Hold on a minute, Sergeant. You just hold on a minute. What in hell's name has that got to do with anything?' He said: 'I've made my ruling and that's it. I've made my ruling and that's the end of it.'

Percy Neal gave a speech and said, 'We don't want you looking after us; we want you out of here. You're addicted to this idea that we can't look after ourselves. You are addicted to it.' The first step to overcoming addiction is to admit to it. The minister said, 'I know exactly what you're saying, Percy. I know exactly what you're saying. I promise you that we will look after these houses for you, and in all other aspects we will look after you.' The big black bloke I was with laughed so much he fell on the floor. I was doubled over with laughter. She proved absolutely everything that Percy was saying. She couldn't even envisage a world in which we blackfellas looked after ourselves. She could not even get it into her head. She did not realise what a laughing-stock she had become—a very elegant woman, a very outspoken woman, a very impressive woman, yes, and a person that took away every single human right that we had and intended to continue to take them off us.

Andrew Forrest saw the horror of what is and he is trying to do something about it. I have backed him very strongly on numerous occasions in this place. Some people said, 'You're suddenly changing position.' Well, I think we are going a lot further than what Andrew was advocating; he was advocating that it be voluntary in areas where there were serious problems. If the government were fair dinkum about this and actually talked to people about it seriously, then the government would know that they can get people to agree to it. They realise that they have a serious problem and they will agree to it.

One of the greatest ladies I was most proud of—she was a contemporary of mine at school—had a terrible upbringing. The world had not been very kind to her as a kid. I'd like to name her: Jenny Dempsey is her name. She overcame all of her upbringing. Her father was a rip-roarious drunk, like a lot of the copper gougers and people who worked in the bush and came into town and were pretty riotous. He took an order out against himself. When the wife left he said, 'I'm responsible for my little daughter,' and he took an order out against himself. From my experience in Queensland, taking an order out against yourself is very, very successful, particularly in small towns because all the pubs know you. When you take an order out against yourself it becomes illegal to serve you in a bar unless you yourself go down to the police station and get the order removed. But he didn't get the order removed.

The point I'm trying to make is that the government underestimate that a lot of people realise they have a problem and will come into the cashless card. If it is done on a voluntary basis, as was advocated by Andrew Forrest in the first place, then I think we are talking about a different animal. But when you start imposing it, when you combine this with the fact that you can't spend any money over $10,000 and you can see Woolworths coming out and saying, 'We're not going to cash anymore,' you see where we're going. Woolworths and Coles and those people control the banks. Read Piketty's book. I think every person in this place should read Piketty's book, Capital. The CEO class rule the world. The CEO class run the banks. The CEO class run Woolworths and Coles. They have this place to deregulate every single rural industry. Within three years of dairy deregulation, to quote but one example, there was a farmer committing suicide every day in Australia and there was another farm worker or business supplier or contractor committing suicide as well. That is two every five days in Australia. Did anyone worry about that? No, no-one worried about that. It's only people killing themselves. We don't worry about that!

Our First Australians—I'm going to say this repeatedly and continuously. I'm going to get nastier and more vicious as time goes on, and pointed. It will get into the world press. We, as an identifiable race of people—and I'm not including people like myself who claim to have a blackfellow somewhere in the family tree. I'm talking about real, fair dinkum people that're living in communities and enclaves in the city. Those people have the highest incarceration rates in the world. Noel Pearson argued this and everyone eventually agreed he was right—the highest incarceration rates in the world. The lowest life expectancy in the world—after two years of trying to find where the state government had hidden the figures, I got the figures from one community in Cape York and the Gulf. Life expectancy for males was 43 and females was 51. That's something to be proud of as a nation, isn't it? That's something to be proud of as a nation! We have the highest stolen children rates in the world. We are double from when we made the apologies. The hypocrisy of this place, to get up and apologise when you knew you were taking the children at a higher rate than you were taking them then.

When I went into parliament politicians were ranked the fourth most respected profession in Australia. We are now continuously last or second last. Don't you realise that people hate you? You don't care how many of them die, how many farmers and farm workers suicide, how many First Australians live like this and continue to live like this. You are doing nothing about it. You say, 'Well, what can we do about it?' You race out there and try and suppress the symptoms. You ban grog in all the communities. What a farce. There is not a single person associated with communities that doesn't kill themselves laughing—as if they haven't already killed themselves—at the ban on alcohol. We have some of the best entrepreneurs in Australia running rogue in the communities. They make their own brew, as they call it. Some die on account of the brew, but we won't worry about that either!

If you are a First Australian living in a First Australian community there is no such thing as owning your own land. We are the only group of people that I know on earth that are not allowed to own our own land. If you doubt for a moment the implications of that then read Hernando de Soto's book The Mystery Of Capital and it will explain it to you, why poverty— (Time expired)

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all those who have contributed to the debate on this bill. This bill is a critical part of the government's ongoing commitment to an effective welfare system that provides a strong safety net for Australians but also ensures that all Australians take up their responsibilities and make a contribution to our community. The cashless debit card aims to encourage socially responsible behaviour by restricting the amount of money available to be spent on alcohol and gambling in communities and supporting welfare recipients with their budgeting strategies.

The bill establishes the cashless debit card as an ongoing program at existing sites, providing certainty for participants, communities, stakeholders and leaders who know that the support of the cashless debit card will continue and that the positive results of the cashless debit card can continue. It also provides for the transition of income management participants in the Northern Territory and Cape York region in Queensland to the cashless debit card. The government will work with income management participants, communities and stakeholders to support the transition and will transition participants progressively to ensure appropriate support can be provided. The bill ensures that welfare recipients in the Northern Territory and Cape York region in Queensland have access to the best technology and the best process for welfare quarantining.

The cashless debit card program is delivering significant benefits for the communities where it currently operates. The program has an objective of encouraging socially responsible behaviour, supporting budgeting strategies and reducing the likelihood that welfare recipients will remain on welfare and out of the workforce for extended periods.

The government thanks the community leaders it has worked with and will continue to work with in the implementation of the cashless debit card. It acknowledges their courage and their leadership to assist members of their communities to break the cycle of welfare dependency, improve social outcomes and support people into employment. I commend the bill to the House.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Barton has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted, with a view to substituting other words. So the question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It being 1.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43.